4.1.3 Perspectives on the commons

Helpful prior knowledge and learning objectives

Helpful prior learning:


Learning objectives:

Imagine you’re in a science class, and your teacher pulls out a prism. You already know what’s coming: shine white light through it, and suddenly, you see a rainbow of colours—red, orange, yellow, green, blue… it’s all there, hidden within the light. Without the prism, it’s invisible. 


Now, think about how you see the world around you. That view is also shaped by the “prisms” you’ve been taught to use, such as what you learn in school, hear in the media, or experience in your community. If you’re used to thinking that human needs are unlimited, that people are inherently selfish, and competition is a basic fact of life, then that’s what you’ll see.

Illustration of a prism bending light and revealing colours

Figure 1. Like a prism, our worldviews shape how we understand the world and what’s possible

(Credit: MicroOne, licenced from Adobe Stock)

But what if we used a different prism, a worldview that lets us see how people can cooperate, share what they have, and take care of each other and nature in ways that are not driven by money or ownership?

How do market-dominated worldviews shape the way we view the economy and the commons within it?

The dominant worldview in our society has some key assumptions that shape how we think about the economy and our relationships within it. It’s based on the idea that human needs and wants are unlimited, while resources are limited and therefore scarce. There is not enough for everyone. Because of this, we’re told that life is a constant struggle to get as much as we want, or at least “our share”. People are portrayed as naturally selfish, each trying to maximise their own benefit. We’re locked in endless competition. If we don’t look out for ourselves, we’ll fall behind.

From this perspective, the only way to organise our relationships and manage resources is through private property and markets. Individuals own things and exchange them for personal gain. Private property gives people the right to exclude others and control resources, which, the logic goes, makes them take better care of what they own. Markets are seen as the most efficient way to allocate resources and meet people’s needs. They are meant to reward hard work, encourage innovation, and provide incentives for using resources wisely.

Photograph of a fishing boat harvesting a massive amount of fish.

Figure 2. The Tragedy of the Commons narrative argues that shared resources will be inevitably be depleted as humans take as much as they can

(Credit: Asc1733, CC BY-SA 4.0)

This way of thinking makes it very hard to see the commons as an attractive alternative to markets. It’s why ecologist Garrett Hardin famously argued in his 1968 essay,  “The Tragedy of the Commons,” that commoning doesn’t work. He claimed that if people shared a pasture for grazing cattle, each would try to maximise their own benefit by adding more cattle, eventually overgrazing the land and destroying it for everyone. To Hardin, the only solutions were either privatising the land or letting the state manage it.

Why does this worldview not reflect reality?

Hardin’s argument ignored an important truth: humans can self-organise. Communities around the world come together to manage shared resources effectively all the time. They set limits, monitor usage, and hold each other accountable. By building trust and cooperation, they prevent the kind of overexploitation Hardin described.

Part of the problem with how people think about human cooperation lies in how evolutionary theory has been misunderstood. For years, people thought evolution was primarily about competition between individuals—“survival of the fittest” was interpreted as every person for themselves. But researchers like EO Wilson and David Sloan Wilson have shown that this isn’t the whole story. Evolution also works at the group level. Groups that cooperate and support one another tend to outcompete groups that don’t. This means that traits like trust, fairness, and mutual aid are deeply rooted in our biology. Cooperation isn’t just a cultural ideal; it’s a survival strategy.

A cartoon with two people standing in front of a theatre announcement of Tragedy of the commons. The main says, "I hear it lacks dialogue"

Figure 3. The tragedy of the commons narrative forgets that humans can and do collaborate to protect and regenerate the resources they collectively depend on

(Credit: unknown source)

This capacity for cooperation isn’t a rare exception—it’s a fundamental part of what it means to be human and makes commoning work in communities around the world. Successful commons rely on relationships, social norms, and shared goals, not just on competition or top-down management. Hardin’s failure to see this reflects a narrow worldview, one that casts people as selfish individuals with unlimited wants. The tragedy, then, isn’t with the commons itself, but with the limited perspective that blinds people to the realistic possibilities of cooperation.

How do we need to shift our worldview to understand and engage in commoning?

To truly understand the commons, we need to shift away from this dominant worldview of scarcity, selfishness, and competition. Instead of focusing on scarcity and self-interest, we need to see abundance in our relationships and our shared ability to care for each other and the world around us.

One powerful idea that helps us do this comes from the African concept of Ubuntu. It’s a philosophy that says, “I am because we are.” It’s the opposite of individualism. It’s about recognizing that our humanity and well-being are deeply connected to those around us. Ubuntu thinking is not about satisfying our needs and wants at the expense of others, but thriving together, by aligning individual and collective needs. Ubuntu emphasises care, shared responsibility, and the understanding that when we cooperate, we can create a better outcome for everyone.

When we look through the lens of Ubuntu and the commons, we see that resources like water, forests, and knowledge don’t have to be controlled by individuals or businesses. They can be stewarded by communities with respect and care (Section 4.1.4). In these communities, people come together to create shared rules, make decisions collectively, and hold each other accountable. This doesn’t mean there are never conflicts or challenges, or that people are never selfish, but it shows that people are capable of more than just selfish competition. They can cooperate to create systems that are fair and sustainable over the long term. 

A photograph of someone holding up a lens, with a different view

Figure 4. How might we look at the world through new lenses to make existing commons more visible to our culture and reveal the possibilities for organising our economies differently?

(Credit: Turner, CC BY 2.0)

This shift in worldview isn’t just about seeing the world differently—it’s about acting differently. It means moving beyond the idea that every problem requires a market solution and recognizing that collective action outside markets can often be more effective. It involves valuing the relationships and shared knowledge that underpin the commons and embracing diverse ways of creating value—social, cultural, ecological, and not just monetary.

This doesn’t mean abandoning markets or private property but making space for the commons as a way to organise relationships and resources. It means viewing the economy not as a machine driven by money and profit but as a living network of people, communities, and ecosystems. This shift challenges the economics discipline, which often reduces the economy to money exchanges. By embracing commoning, we unlock possibilities for meeting our needs in more equitable, sustainable, and fulfilling ways. The commons invite us to reimagine relationships, rebuild communities, and rediscover the good life together.

This shift in perspective is captured nicely in the short video by economist Kate Raworth below:

Activity 4.1.3

Concept: Systems

Skills: Thinking skills (critical thinking, transfer)

Time: varies, depending on option

Type: Individual, pairs, or group


Option 1: Challenging the Tragedy of the Commons

Time: 40 minutes

Option 2: Renaming the tragedy of the commons

Time: 25 minutes

In 1998, long after writing Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin recognised that he had made a mistake, saying that he should have referred to “unmanaged commons” rather than commons.

Cultural scholar Lewis Hyde went even further. He suggested that the tragedy of the commons be renamed:


The Tragedy of Unmanaged, Laissez-Faire, Common-Pool Resources with Easy Access for Noncommunicating, Self-Interested Individuals


Pick apart Hyde’s suggested title and explain why it might be a better title for what Garrett Hardin was talking about than tragedy of the commons. You could consider this alone in writing or audio record a reflection. Or discuss with a partner.

Checking for understanding

Further exploration

Sources

Bollier. D. (2021). The Commoners Catalog For Changemaking: Tools for the Transitions Ahead.   https://commonerscatalog.org/

Bollier, D. and Helfrich, S. (2019). “2. The OntoShift to the Commons”. Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. https://freefairandalive.org/read-it/

Bollier, D.  (2025). Think Like a Commoner, 2nd edition. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. https://www.thinklikeacommoner.com/

Institute for New Economic Thinking. (2019). Unlimited Wants, Limited Resources | How & How NOT to Do Economics with Robert Skidelsky [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/CifipPzK7ao.

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. London: Penguin Random House. (Chapter 3: Nurture Human Nature)

Terminology (in order of appearance)

Link to Quizlet interactive flashcards and terminology games for Section 4.1.3 Perspectives on the commons


worldview: an all-inclusive outlook on the world held by an individual or group, and through which they make sense of reality and gain knowledge

scarcity: when there is not enough of something

private property: the ownership of property by private individuals and groups

efficiency: the ratio of resource inputs compared to outputs

incentive: something that motivates or encourages someone to do something

tragedy of the commons: when shared resources are overused and depleted

privatise: to transfer (a business, property or service) from public to private ownership and control

state: a system that provides essential public services, and also governs and regulates other economic institutions

abundant: when something is available in large quantities

care: the act of providing what is necessary for the health, welfare, upkeep, and protection of someone or something

Ubuntu: a set of closely related Bantu African-origin value systems that emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals with their surrounding societal and physical worlds

stewardship: the job of supervising or taking care of something, such as an organisation or ecosystem

sustainability: meeting people’s needs within the means of the planet

profit: total revenue minus total cost

ecosystem: the interaction of groups of organisms with each other and their physical environment

good life: a life that brings wellbeing, with all its possible meanings, to self and others